Chennai Court September 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Simpson and General Finance Company Limited Rep. by Its Director J. Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC656; (2006)4MLJ1807
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. By consent of counsel on both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in proceedings bearing R.C. 5468/92/A on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, ULT, Madhavaram/2nd respondent dated 13.03.2003 and to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents or any other Officers or Subordinates under the respondents from interfering with the lawful possession of the petitioner in respect of the lands declared as excess vacant land and measuring an extent of 1,38,970 sq.mts. and comprised in T.S. Nos. 2, 9, 10, 20, 21, 23 and 27 of Sembium, lands in T.S. Nos. 1/3 and 1/7 of Peravallur Village and lands in T.S. Nos. 843, 844 and 847 at Madhavaram Village in the guise of power under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 as repealed by Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.3. The ...
The Director General of National Power Training Institute and the Exec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ533
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Director General of National Power Training Institute, Faridabad, Haryana, and the Executive Director, National Power Training Institute, Regional Power Training Institute, Neyveli, aggrieved by the Common Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.01.2004, made in W.P. Nos. 14057 of 1997 and 6226 of 1998, preferred the above Writ Appeals.2. The respondent herein is the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions. According to her, she belongs to Scheduled Caste and was selected as Assistant Director (Technical Faculty) by proceedings, dated 08.04.1996, of the Director General, National Power Training Institute (shortly called NPTI), Haryana. She completed her probation period of one year on 22.04.1997 itself. While so, the Director General, NPTI, passed an order, terminating her service by proceedings dated 26.08.1997. Pursuant to the above said Order, the Executive Director, NPTI, Neyveli, by order dated 08.09.1997, terminated her from service with retrospective ef...
Lakshmi Srinivas Savings and Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC638; 2007(1)CTC291
K.N. Basha, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, in C.C. No. 208 of 1996 dated 26.02.1998 acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued a cheque, Ex.P.1, dated 12.10.1993 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Denaducombai Branch, Udhagamandalam. The complainant thereafter presented the said cheque for payment though their Bankers M/s. Vijaya Bank, Udagamandalam, on 12.10.1993 and the same was dishonoured by the bankers on the ground that the account was already closed. The Bank Memo dated 15.10.1993 is marked as Ex.P.2 and the Bank Intimation dated 18.10.1993 is marked as Ex.P.3. The complainant thereafter sent a registered legal notice dated 30.10.1993, Ex.P.4 and the acknowledgment for the same is marked as Ex.P.5. The accused ...
K. Sp. V. Shanmugham, Vs. Alwarpet Benefit Fund Ltd. Rep. by Its Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ554
P. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. Aggrieved by the Order, dated 17.02.2006, of the learned single Judge, made in WPMP No. 2722 of 2005 in W.P. No. 14577 of 1999, the appellants have filed the above appeal.3. Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel for the appellants; Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Counsel for R-1; Mr. R.S. Raveendhran, learned Counsel for R-2; and Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for R-3.4. One of the depositors of M/s. Alwarpet Benefit Fund Limited approached this Court by way of Writ Petition, viz., W.P. No. 14577 of 1999, seeking for the issuance of a mandamus, directing the first respondent therein, i.e., M/s. Reserve Bank of India, to appoint a fit and proper person as custodian/Special Officer for taking immediate control and possession of all the assets, properties, movables and immovables, and securities belonging to M/s. Alwarpet Benefit Fund Limited and pay the de...
A.V.S. Raja Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas591(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated August 1, 2003, made in R. A. No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai arising out of the order in O. A. No. 27 of 2001 dated June 19, 2002, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai.2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the contesting first respondent.3. In view of the limited issue raised, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to go into the factual matrix as stated by the petitioner as well as the first respondent. It was contended before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal that though the loan availed of by the petitioner was an agricultural loan at concessional rate of interest, however, the respondent-bank charged interest at 19.89 per cent., which is not applicable to agricultural loans. Taking note of various aspects including the admitted factual position that the loan availed of by the petitioner was not utilised for agricultural purpose, b...
Tara Dyers Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: (2008)16VST557(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.W.P. Nos. 17048, 17049, 18321, 22831, 23071, 24079, 24287, 28627, 29516, 29517 of 2004 and 2618, 2619, 9350, 15355 and 15356 of 2005:1. In all these cases, the assessing officers have issued notices to the respective assessees on forming an opinion that the transaction of dye carried on by the petitioners/assessees would amount to works contract under Section 3B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') and on that basis directed the assessees to file A1 returns.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respective petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that what is impugned is only notice requiring the assessees/petitioners to file Al returns in respect of their transaction. The assessees/petitioners can file their returns or objections, if any, to the notice by putting forth their case and as to what is the activity of the petitioners with supporting materials, so as to...
Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1066; (2006)4MLJ528
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred by Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, is directed against the order dated 08.08.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 2214 of 1987.2. In respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, the claimant by name Balaraman, filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal for a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. According to him, on 20.09.1987 at about 9.45 a.m., when he was standing in Suthanthira Nagar I Street, a tractor-trailer bearing Registration No. TNO 2641, driven rashly and negligently from South to North, dashed against him, causing bone fracture in his left thigh. It is his case that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor-trailer and as such, he is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. On his side, three persons were examined and five documents were marked.3. On the other hand, the Ins...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›